BT FTTN network hits 25 million premises milestone

201

news BT has announced that its UK wholesale fibre network, Openreach, has passed the 25-million premises milestone.

The rollout of the Openreach fibre broadband network commenced in July 2009 – a time when the average UK broadband speed was just 4.1Mbps.

“Since then, more than 70,000 premises have been passed on average every week in what is one of the fastest deployments of fibre broadband in the world,” said BT in a statement.

To date, Openreach engineers have upgraded more than 4,700 telephone exchanges and installed tens of thousands of street cabinets across the UK, having spent more than 10 million man hours rolling out fibre and driving 72 million miles. The model is similar to the Coalition’s Fibre to the Node approach to the NBN. Labor also initially supported a FTTN vision for the NBN from 2007, but abandoned it in 2009 for a Fibre to the Premises model.

The “vast majority” of the rollout has been funded by BT on a “purely commercial” basis, the firm said.

However, around four million of the 25 million premises have been reached as a result of the Government’s Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) programme. This sees BT and the public sector both contributing funds to reach areas that the private sector would not have reached otherwise.

The overall BDUK programme is “on track and under budget”, said BT, and 95% of UK premises are expected to have access to superfast broadband by the end of 2017.

The firm cited independent EU data revealing the UK to be significantly ahead of most European countries when it comes to the availability and take up of superfast broadband.

Availability is approximately double that of France, whilst take up is 50% higher than in Germany, twice that of Spain and 12 times that of Italy.

Further, the average broadband speed in the UK has climbed from around 23Mbps in 2014 to almost 29Mbps in 2015, an increase of 27%. That figure is likely to increase as more customers choose to upgrade from copper to fibre broadband, BT said.

“Our approach has delivered affordable superfast services to the vast majority of the country in the fastest possible time,” said Clive Selley, Openreach CEO. “We want to build upon that by making ultrafast broadband available to most of the UK.”

If the plan is realised, Openreach would deliver ultrafast speeds to 10 million premises by 2020, and to “the majority of the UK” within 10 years.

That ambitious aim would be achieved by using a mix of G.fast technology and fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP), Selley explained, adding that the latter would be focused mainly on “new developments and small businesses in high streets and business parks”.

Additionally, the UK Government is currently consulting on a 10Mbps Universal Service Obligation to cover the remainder of the UK. BT said Openreach is ready to play a “supportive role” in that process, and that it is exploring a “range of potential solutions that could be deployed subject to a supportive regulatory environment”.

201 COMMENTS

    • Not to downplay what they have done in the UK, but the UK also has a hell of a lot more premises in a much smaller land area than Australia.

      Much in the same way that we aren’t apparently now allowed to talk about New Zealand and their FTTP rollout because they are rolling out to the equivalent of Victoria… The UK is rolling out to the land mass of Victoria with the population density nearing that of some areas in Japan.

      Yet, the UK rollout is apparently perfectly indicative of the Australian experience…

      • 7 years to do an area around the size of Vic you say R…

        They are “faster” than us.

        FRAUDBAND for the win.

      • “… UK also has a hell of a lot more premises in a much smaller land area …”

        +1. Density is on their side. They cheat.

        • Indeed, but then there are trade offs, we don’t have backyards the size of a large cardboard box :o)

      • Yes, if you consider that Australia has a 3.13 population per square km, then the UK rollout is quite dissimilar. However, in reality, Australia is mostly unpopulated big desert. 2/3 of the population of Australia lives in Greater Capital City areas. Yes, the populated areas are still less dense than many European cities. But only half as dense. There is not as great a discrepancy as some people like to claim. https://chartingtransport.com/2015/12/06/how-do-australian-and-european-cities-compare-for-population-and-area/

        To see that the density is around 50%, also see https://chartingtransport.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/au-eu-ca-nz-population-weighted-density.png and also http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/12/01/does-melbourne-really-extend-five-time-further-than-london/

        To account for the main difference, lower population density in the cities, I’d argue that some technologies are much better suited than others. Particularly, technologies like fibre optics that don’t do badly on distance from the node will do much better than others like copper and wireless that degrade very quickly in distances like fifty meters. The cost of the hardware to be rolled out will thus be a higher in less dense areas, but actually the manpower in rolling out could be lower because there are many more choices about where to put the cabling. In highly dense areas, significantly more percentage of locations are already used.

        In this manner, you can use the knowledge of the comparative population densities and the factors implicit in the mutual rollouts to gain perfect indications. Noting of course that a perfect indication is somewhat of a malapropism; if something merely indicates advisability, how can it be perfect?

      • /lol

        So when people point to Korea or Japan as models of FTTP deployment, and ignore population density etc, it’s okay, right? \= )

        Further, population density generally makes deployment cheaper = more reason to go with FTTP than FTTN, right?? \= D

        As usual, the story is much deeper than that and simplistic bitching about anything that isn’t explicitly “YAY FOR FTTP” is pointless (not that you’ll stop ; ).

        Renai didn’t say it was a perfect model (and no one else in the article is quoted as saying it’s a perfect motivation for Aus to do it…), it’s just another piece of relevant news re: broadband. Which is kinda what this site is about.

        • @ org.

          “Renai didn’t say it was a perfect model (and no one else in the article is quoted as saying it’s a perfect motivation for Aus to do it…), it’s just another piece of relevant news re: broadband. Which is kinda what this site is about.”

          Indeed it’s far from perfect. It’s taken some seven years to reach (most?) of the UK which is a little larger than Vic.

          So going yay my political party’s latest catch up plan is like theirs, is pointless if not ridiculous (not that you’ll stop) :/

          Regardless doing such sums to see how slow BT’s roll out actually was/is… is kinda what this factual site is about, even if some can’t handle the (factual) truth.

        • I was talking in reference to the speed at which they can rollout to that many premises, which is relevant.

          I agree that pointing to Japan or South Korea as evidence of FTTP is equally disingenuous as it is pointing to the UK as evidence of FTTN.

        • Of course what OZ FTTN haters avoid is the reason why BT chose FTTN over FTTP in the first place.

          “We have invested £3 billion ($5.9bn) but to do FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) it would have been ten times that and the speed of deployment would have been at 10 per cent at this point,” Mr Patterson said. “The case for us to pay back on FTTH was simply not there,

          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/nbn-co-unites-with-british-telecom-on-secrets-of-speed/news-story/59d1cd696ffb4bd1cabb81c4416d04a10

          You can feign shock horror at how long the UK FTTN rollout took, but taking the 10% deployment for FTTP at that point calculate how long FTTP would have taken to finish!

          • I wasn’t feigning any shock, nor horror, at their speed.

            I actually said…

            “Not to downplay what they have done in the UK”, you know the implication of that is that what they have done IS impressive… right?

            Reading comprehension plox.

          • @ alain

            Conjecture…

            “We have invested £3 billion ($5.9bn) but to do FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) it would have been ten times that and the speed of deployment would have been at 10 per cent at this point,” Mr Patterson said. “The case for us to pay back on FTTH was simply not there,

            You’re welcome

          • Oh I see, you know more about the BT decision making process on infrastructure choice than the current person running the company.

            LOL

          • Oh I see…

            You take conjecture to be factual but refuse to accept what the ex-CTO actually said…

            HUGE mistake… maybe they can just add a dash of FAILED (your word) HFC to their FRAUDBAND (Coalition’s word) eh?

            LOL indeed, but we aren’t laughing with you alain.

            You’re welcome.

          • The ex CTO said that back in 2012, the latest comment is from the current CEO, leading to the reason for this discussion.

            more than 70,000 premises have been passed on average every week in what is one of the fastest deployments of fibre broadband in the world,” said BT in a statement.

            More from BT on the reason for the choice of FTTN.

            Openreach’s director of network investment, Mike Galvin, said that BT would not have been able to justify the cost of deploying fibre to the premises across the UK.

            “Fibre to the cabinet is considerably cheaper. It varies from site to site, but in brownfields, it is typically four times cheaper, maybe even more,” he said.

            http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-fibre-to-the-world/

          • Lol devoid
            So by rolling out 70K a week and we can barely do 2K a week or 8K if you want to include FTTB. Can’t even hit double digits the FTTP rollout was doing.

    • I have always thought the Liberal policy followed the philosophy that its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

      Roll it out for the quick reward and political points, and let someone else pick up the pieces later. In the timeframes we’re talking about, you’d expect 2 or 3 changes of Government and/or leadership as a minimum, which gives the basic excuse that someone else made the mistakes in the past.

      So far, nothing has changed that opinion.

      From the Liberal angle, when something IS done, it’ll either be “another example of Labor overspending”, or “being responsible for our future growth” depending on who’s in power.

      • Depends on how it is remembered in the long term.

        One of Labor big election platforms has been the guys brought you medicare and the LNP as the guys who would destroy it if given a chance point to there previous efforts in the public health space. They have pinned their hopes on being the better ‘economic managers’ (in the eyes of the layman), however assuming they win the next election unless something turns around quick they will that as there legacy. All they are left with is border control but you can’t keep blaming rising unemployment on illegal immigrants for while continuing to claim to have stopped them for much longer. I think calling a DD on the building union issue is a move more designed to appease LNP donors and power brokers than voters as I’m pretty sure you can find more people pissed of with construction companies that the construction unions.

        • Fair points. As it is, the Labor versions seems to be holding up better than whats happened under the Liberal watch. Many people seem to now understand the differences between the two rollouts, and what each mean in whats now the near future.

          The Liberals got in for a number of reasons, most of which revolved around 3 word slogans and picturing the Labor party as children.

          Most of which appears to have now backfired, with a lot of their election stances having gone nowhere, been handled worse than how Labor was doing things, or worse.

          I point to the whole “put the adults back in charge” angle, with the solemn vow that you wouldnt see the childish infighting with the Liberals that you saw with Labor.

          How’d that work out?

      • Nah man…. 79% on 25Mbit or lower is totally proof nobody wants those speeds. Don’t you know anything?

        • My bad. I made the mistake of assuming that, because we’re following the UK rollout, their polls may have relevance.

          I apologise for that error. I’ll try to avoid it in future.

          • And so you should. Britain is a perfect example of why we should do FTTN, except for when it shows that people do actually want speed over their network… then we must ignore it.

            Until such time as we need to point to somewhere as cause for why we should roll out FTTN that is.

          • We don’t need UK polls to determine what speed tiers customers in Australia want, we have better information than predictions, we have the actual data.

          • umm what has got to do with what I said about speed preferences in Australia from actual data?

          • You’re happy to quote the UK experience when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn’t.

          • Two different things Ronin, one is a poll the other is what is actually happening that is BT selected FTTN over FTTP.

            A lot like speed tier selection in Australia, FTTN bashers love to try and predict what might happen vs the stats as to what is actually happening.

          • @alternate – “BT selected FTTN over FTTP”

            You mean back in 2009? Yes they did…and they are paying for it. That said, it certainly made far more sense back in 2009 than it does today.

          • “Two different things Ronin, one is a poll the other is what is actually happening that is BT selected FTTN over FTTP.”

            Ooh Tim J, apparently you’re me.

            I have been upgraded to annoying enough to Reality that he thinks I go out of my way to sockpuppet, I am on the same level as Rizz now, I feel proud.

  1. Our approach has delivered affordable superfast services to the vast majority of the country in the fastest possible time

    Like a toddler smearing shit on a wall they want you to be proud of their artwork.

    • At their current uptake rate of 20-25% that’d be about 5-6 million.

      In the UK people have other options. Though BT has been chastised lately for obstructing other providers trying to rollout full FTTP.

  2. Did they buy back the copper like Australia did?
    No. That’s the only reason BT are rolling out FTTN is because they already owned the copper network.

    • You have identified the fallacy in continuously comparing Australian methods to those deployed elsewhere.

      The UK is in a better position having done what they have in their situation. Australians need to settle on something that will deliver benefit here.

      • That and the fact they have 255 people per square Km and we have 3.2. Doesn’t look much better even if you limit the comparison to urban density.

        • Population density in not that low if you exclude areas covered by satellite.
          Most of Australia is empty space.

          • That’s a bit simplistic. But the facts are many houses are almost granny flats by our standards on smaller blocks of land. It would be interesting to have comparative figure on the number of houses per node. https://goo.gl/WlEIx0

          • The old urbanisation canard once again rears its ugly head.

            Actually I believe Australia is more urbanised than the UK.

            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2212.html

            Australia 89%
            UK 80%
            US 82%
            NZ 86%
            Canada 81%
            Germany 74%
            Japan 91%
            South Korea 83%

            Interesting stats.

            Just goes to show that our urbanisation and population density is perfectly high enough to affordably roll out fibre to 90+% of the nation (like the experts said), and anyone saying otherwise is just making poor excuses.

          • I am not aware that anyone is pushing a argument about degrees of urbanisation as a reason for infrastructure selection.

            You do make the point though that Australia is more urbanised than the UK, but the UK is mainly FTTN, so not really sure what your point is about FTTP selection.

          • My comment sad that Australia’s population density makes it suitable for an NBN rollout with more fibre than FTTN.
            Capiche?

          • Why because Australia is 9% more urbanised than the UK?

            That 9% difference is the primary decider for a FTTP rollout the world over is it?

            LOL

          • As I’ve said elsewhere, you’re happy to quote the UK experience when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn’t.

          • @alternate – “Why because Australia is 9% more urbanised than the UK?”

            That certainly adds greatly to the cost of FTTN…
            But since it is no longer 2009, most of the world has figured out through experience that FTTP is far cheaper, easier to upgrade, and far more robust (as well as being a vastly smaller carbon footprint).

          • Most of the world doesn’t get a gift of the dominant incumbents copper and HFC infrastructure, under those circumstances why would you overbuild it with expensive CPP brownfields FTTP?

          • @ alain,

            Give us a prediction now, as you did here at Delimiter in 2011 (less than 5 years ago) like this gem…LOL

            “In reality the MAJORITY of users today are quite happy with ADSL2+ speeds or even 1500/256 or less, by far the biggest exponential growth in BB is wireless, which has nothing to do with the need for FTTH, also it’s best not to mention the incredible wireless growth relative to the almost static growth in fixed line BB.”

            You’re welcome

          • The often repeated stage act when it gets awkward is what is hilarious.

            oh I nearly forgot.

            +1

            *nailed it*

          • Speaking of awkward, alain…

            Let’s all read it together again and all (except one, of course) piss ourselves laughing at the stupidity again…

            “In reality the MAJORITY of users today are quite happy with ADSL2+ speeds or even 1500/256 or less, by far the biggest exponential growth in BB is wireless, which has nothing to do with the need for FTTH, also it’s best not to mention the incredible wireless growth relative to the almost static growth in fixed line BB.”

            Before roads there were no roads.

            You’re welcome

          • @alternate – “Most of the world doesn’t get a gift of the dominant incumbents copper and HFC infrastructure”

            LOL…a “gift” he calls it. Infrastructure on its last legs that requires billions to repair and many more billions to clean up. We just took over all of Telstra’s massive copper-related financial burden and you think it’s a “gift”????

          • @Reality – as I recall we paid for that “gift”. If memory serves we also bought it sight unseen (so to speak) and now we’re paying for it to be fixed. If it’s a gift I think the giving has gone the other way.

            #IamRizz
            #IamR0nin
            #Iamme

          • “Most of the world doesn’t get a gift of the dominant incumbents copper and HFC infrastructure”

            Most of the world, including us.

            We actually had to buy that back from private industry, after having sold it off.

            When there is not an incumbent, who is doing the rollout, most countries around the world started moving to the technology that would give them the best long term gain for the cost of rolloing out.
            Guess what technology that was, I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “FTT”, but it doesn’t end in “n”.

          • Population density in not that low if you exclude areas covered by satellite. Most of Australia is empty space.

            Like I said Joe, it ain’t that much better even if you compare just the urban areas:

            Sydney – 400/km2
            Melbourne – 453/km2

            Manchester – 4,498/km2
            London – 5,432/km2
            Leeds – 3,645/km2

            It’s only when you “go bush” to York that it gets closer to Australian densities – 687/km2

          • Woolfe,

            Most of the world, including us.

            Your grasp as to what actually happened eludes you, the Coalition NBN Co obtained the HFC and copper infrastructure for the same contractual amount that Labor were paying to Optus and Telstra to have it shut down.

            The contract terms with Telstra and Optus were signed off by Conroy and Labor.

            We actually had to buy that back from private industry, after having sold it off.

            No we didn’t, see above, I don’t what the ‘ having sold it off’ is all about, what are you on about?

            When there is not an incumbent, who is doing the rollout, most countries around the world started moving to the technology that would give them the best long term gain for the cost of rolloing out.

            Meet the ‘new’ incumbent the Government owned NBN Co, having obtained the copper and HFC assets from the previous incumbent Telstra the NBN Co is rolling out a MtM model the correct way, that is not overbuilding them with expensive $4,400 CPP brownfields FTTP, and utilising those infrastructure assets in the most cost effective way.

          • Your grasp as to what actually happened eludes you, the Coalition NBN Co obtained the HFC and copper infrastructure for the same contractual amount that Labor were paying to Optus and Telstra to have it shut down.

            Wrong. They also pay Telstra for network design and installation as well as maintenance. The rest of your post is pure drivel too, can’t you ever get anything right?

            So much for “Not a cent more”.

          • Tin_man,

            “the Coalition NBN Co obtained the HFC and copper infrastructure for the same contractual amount that Labor were paying to Optus and Telstra to have it shut down.”

            Wrong.

            Explain why that statement is wrong.

            They also pay Telstra for network design and installation as well as maintenance.

            Yes and other contractors as well, they same they do for FTTP, HFC, fixed wireless and satellite, other than stating the bleeding obvious about network design, installation and maintenance of all infrastructure types, you have a point?

          • @ alain,

            “the Coalition NBN Co obtained the HFC and copper infrastructure for the same contractual amount that Labor were paying to Optus and Telstra to have it shut down.”

            FFS, still attempting and re-attempting to try to get the semantics right to avoid admitting OPEX costs? Who does that and why would anyone even attempt to dismiss actuality?

            So what you are now saying is, NBN™ are so inept that they haven’t even arranged the additionally required, “maintenance contracts and amounts” needed over and above, the settlement amount(s) yet?

            Ok I can believe that… well done.

            Regardless you are aware (although shhh) that in the SR they estimated legacy copper replacement at $90.4m… but of course after finding the state of copper network considerably worse than expected that of course blew out to $641m.

            As I understand it, this still doesn’t take into account the (arguable) up to $1B in general annual maintenance or the added $1.6B for HFC etc.

            But of course in your world it doesn’t matter if it’s $90.4m or $641m, + $1.6B + as much as $1B p.a. because to you, such costs just don’t exist .

            Easy.

            You’re welcome.

        • These comparisons are irrelevant. The question is ‘what is the right answer for Australia’.

          The comparison that perhaps does count is the they don’t rip up the strategy every time there is an election.

          • +1

            Problem being however IMO, the best strategy is the one that has already been ripped up.

            So do we carry on with retrograde mediocrity (FTTN), try to upgrade to the lesser FTTP (FttDp) or go back to FTTP?

          • the best strategy is the one that has already been ripped up.

            Disagree, it was correctly stopped and Labor the original architects of the model love it so much they won’t touch it again.

            So do we carry on with retrograde mediocrity (FTTN),

            Yes, no hope of reaching rollout targets by 2020 within the estimated funding otherwise.

            try to upgrade to the lesser FTTP (FttDp)

            It won’t be a upgrade, it may replace FTTN in certain areas that do not have FTTN yet but only after some delaying SR and CBA like reviews take place in 2016-2017.

            or go back to FTTP?

            Not going to happen, not unless you want to extend the finish date and chuck more billions into peak funding, what was it again, $74-84 billion finish date 2026-2028.

          • Lol Devoid

            “Disagree, it was correctly stopped and Labor the original architects of the model love it so much they won’t touch it again.”

            Except doing FTTP for $44B by 2021. It’s now $29B 25Mbps by 2016. Oh wait it’s $41B by 2020. Oh wait it’s UP TO $56B (Hockey said $70B) by 2020. Yes thanks to the MTM it’s increases the cost of FTTP to UP TO $84B and by 2028 if they go back to FTTP.

            “Yes, no hope of reaching rollout targets by 2020 within the estimated funding otherwise.”

            Only 8K a week for FTTN/B or 2K a week for just FTTN we won’t hit he 2020 target either.

          • @ alain

            Wow, I ask questions, giving you the opportunity to explain your contradictory comments, yet you blankly refuse to answer me, over and over. Whereas here, I get vague interpretations of answers, to questions, not even asked. WTF?

            You really do have everything arse up eh?

            Anyhoo, since you are trying desperately to distance yourself from your ridiculously humorous comment from a few years back…

            1. Rizz: the best strategy is the one that has already been ripped up.

            Alain: Disagree. It was correctly stopped and Labor the original architects of the model love it so much they won’t touch it again.

            Rizz 2: Disagree. Politicians, even the PM and also NBN CEO say “FTTP = end goal”… Remember that.

            2. Rizz: So do we carry on with retrograde mediocrity (FTTN)

            alain: Yes, no hope of reaching rollout targets by 2020 within the estimated funding otherwise.

            Rizz 2: Glad you finally agree that “Yes – FTTN is indeed retrograde mediocrity’ as you just did. Now we are progressing.

            3. Rizz: try to upgrade to the lesser FTTP (FttDp)

            Alain: It won’t be a upgrade, it may replace FTTN in certain areas that do not have FTTN yet but only after some delaying SR and CBA like reviews take place in 2016-2017.

            Rizz 2: Regardless of description, it would be clear admission that the FTTN network is not good enough and the superior, (but lesser) FTTP version of FttDp, which was never factored into the so called cheaper/faster MTM network, is required.

            4. Rizz: or go back to FTTP?

            Alain: Not going to happen, not unless you want to extend the finish date and chuck more billions into peak funding, what was it again, $74-84 billion finish date 2026-2028.

            Rizz 2: Remember what I told you to remember …

            You’re welcome

          • “Yes, no hope of reaching rollout targets by 2020 within the estimated funding otherwise.”
            The rollout target they were elected on was 2016.

            “extend the finish date and chuck more billions into peak funding, what was it again, $74-84 billion finish date 2026-2028.”
            So, given the cost of the FTTP was rated at ~$45b finished in 2021, you finally acknowledge that the MTM has set Australia back 6 years and $30b?

          • Rizz,

            No, because you are using out of date FTTP costing estimates from the dim past from the Labor failed NBN rollout.

            The latest CP 2016 FTTP estimates on funding and finish dates are as quoted.

            $74-84 billion finish date 2026-2028.

            You and others refusing to acknowledge up to date figures exist is just another example of a deluded FTTP (now rebadged FTTdp) fan’s exercise in denial.

          • Lol Retvoid

            “No, because you are using out of date FTTP costing estimates from the dim past from the Labor failed NBN rollout.
            The latest CP 2016 FTTP estimates on funding and finish dates are as quoted.
            $74-84 billion finish date 2026-2028.”

            So you try and claim which you have knowledge your self that the $74-$84B and 2026-2028 is a restart of a rollout out while trying to claim it’s the cost of they had continued. So if we are using out dates costing estimates what’s the cost of FTTP if they didn’t switch to the MTM?

            “You and others refusing to acknowledge up to date figures exist is just another example of a deluded FTTP (now rebadged FTTdp) fan’s exercise in denial.”

            So when R0 used the costing out of the CP16 for scenario 4 you are refusing to acknowledge up to date figures typical fan’s exercise in denial.

          • When will you stop embarrassing yourself, Alain?

            “You and others refusing to acknowledge up to date figures exist”
            The CP16 you consistently refer to is estimating FTTP figures if the rollout starts back up as originally envisioned as of TODAY instead of when the originally envisioned plan had actually begun. As such, the FTTP figures presented in CP16 are representative of the FULL COST of the MTM, being that Morrow, Turnbull and the criminally paid-for SR all admit that FTTP is the end goal, being required 1-6 years after construction of MTM finishes.

            The CP16 you consistently refer to states in no unspecific terms that the most recent costings for the original FTTP plan was covered in SR13. As you have been told at least a dozen times.

            Finally, my comment was in direct relation to the changeover to the MTM, I repeat : “you finally acknowledge that the MTM has set Australia back 6 years and $30b?”

            Starting the FTTP from scratch today has no bearing on that question, and you are poorer for consistently not being able to comprehend these simple, straight forward facts.

          • @ alain.

            In amongst all of that tap dancing and dumb semantics…so as not to admit, fuck they are right had we just continued with FTTP…

            Let’s revisit this…

            Rizz: So do we carry on with retrograde mediocrity (FTTN)

            alain: YES (cont…)

            So it’s unanimous. FTTN/FRAUDBAND/NODAFAIL™ is retrograde mediocrity (FTTN)

            You’re welcome, again.

          • Doesn’t CP16 just use the figures for the FttP build based on the discredited SR anyway?

          • I thought all the CP 16 was BS, anything that doesn’t agree with your biased agenda you just say is BS or discredited, you don’t have to explain why because other like minded FTTN haters will agree and as long as you all agree and sing from the same hymn book just singing the same tune with plenty of abuse and swearing included is sufficient.

            Easy.

          • No need to get hysterical Alain, I never said all the CP16 was BS.

            Maybe a cup of tea and a lie down and come back later?

          • You said the so called ‘discredited’ SR discredited as in you said so fed figures into the CP 16, so some of the CP 16 is BS but not other bits.

            So Mr Tinman will determine what is and what is not relevant in CP 16 and the SR based on a ‘fair minded’ comment history of being totally biased towards FTTP (rebadging lately as FTTdp) and hating FTTN.

          • Lol Retvoid

            Labor FTTP $3100 CPP
            SR FTTP $4100 CPP
            CP16 $3600 CPP

            Yep discredited. But then it also claimed the MTM was going to cost $41B and have 4.5M connected this year not 2.5M in the CP16 and up to $56B

          • So you update figures as time goes on as costs are never static, so the original estimate from any time period in the past is therefore defined as ‘discredited’.

            Oh except one, the very special original Labor CPP FTTP calculation, that is to be never discredited or to be updated (only if the figures go down, that’s allowed) and will apply for eternity.

            LOL

          • So Retvoid 3 months after the coalition takes over the NBN FTTP increased by $1000.

            CP16 comes out shows that the FTTP CPP is not what’s was claimed in the SR also shows the HFC and FTTN CPP is my what’s was claimed in the SR. also shows the cost won’t be $41B but now up to $56B.

            So the real reason as to why there is an up to $15B blow out from the SR to the CP16. As we know it can’t be FTTP as the CPP from the SR has drop by $500 in the CP16.

          • @ alain,

            Welcome to alain’s contradiction corner yet again.

            From the person who used to (when the 93% FTTP NBN was being rolled out) refer to all “revisions” as nothing more than broken election promises, missed targets and unacceptable mismanagement, to…

            $29.5B fully costed to all by 2016 blown out to
            $41B- $56B (or blown out to $70B according to former Treasurer Hockey) by 2020 ….

            Plus the very recent blow outs of:-

            $1.6B extra to be paid to Telstra for (FAILED, your word) HFC
            $60k per day for external legals
            A blow out of over 200% on top of $14m to $44m in just 6 months from their estimation for (ridiculous) copper replacement costs.

            Unlike in FTTP days, all just fine and dandy NOW, because they are the most recent figures.

            Before roads, there were no roads

            You’re welcome.

          • You said the so called ‘discredited’ SR discredited as in you said so fed figures into the CP 16, so some of the CP 16 is BS but not other bits.

            Take it up with Renai, the senate committee and many other independent experts.

            https://delimiter.com.au/2014/03/27/turnbull-nbn-co-invited-respond-strategic-review-criticism/

            So Mr Tinman will determine what is and what is not relevant in CP 16 and the SR based on a ‘fair minded’ comment history of being totally biased towards FTTP (rebadging lately as FTTdp) and hating FTTN.

            Using information and analysis from Renai, the senate committee and many other independent experts, yes.

            Not my fault you have an allergy to facts matey :o)

          • So the real reason as to why there is an up to $15B blow out from the SR to the CP16. As we know it can’t be FTTP as the CPP from the SR has drop by $500 in the CP16.

            Not a rant at you Jason, just an “in general” vent :o)

            Everyone always forgets that the MTM is going to cost an extra $15b (minimum) over the next 20 years. You never, ever, see the maintenance costs included (or the power, or the “extra” copper they’ll need). It’s god damned criminal that Malcolm has been able to get away with hiding these extra costs from the CPP.

            But then, he is in the LPA and no matter how they keep spinning it, they are actually the worst economic managers in Australian politics.

          • “It’s god damned criminal that Malcolm has been able to get away with hiding these extra costs from the CPP.”

            Especially when, if I remember correctly, they added OPEX to the CPP of FTTP just to inflate it further.

          • I know Tinman it’s the SR saying there was $1B difference by 2028 between FTTP and MTM. It’s ridiculous the opex spending on MTM when there easily $30B difference.

            But then we have the wise numbers man Richard excuse is early revenue.

          • Tin_man,

            Using information and analysis from Renai, the senate committee and many other independent experts, yes.

            Oh yes the Labor Senate committee led by Conroy operating under the banner ‘It’s payback time’.

            The majority of that article was the Coalition response, you left it out.

            “During the Committee’s work it has become abundantly clear that Labor Senators have no interest in examining or learning from the systemic and material failures of NBN Co, which by September 2013 had reached 3 per cent of Australian premises at a cost to taxpayers of $6.5 billion, and was on a course that would have resulted in every Australian household and business paying $43 per month more for broadband on average.”

            “Instead, the Committee has degenerated into a highly politicised and at times farcical face-saving exercise where Senator Conroy, has sought to distort the history of the NBN and deny or disguise his direct personal culpability for massive economic damage to a crucial input industry and the destruction of taxpayers’ money on an unprecedented scale.”

            Thanks for the link and fixed it for ya so we get the full story.

          • Lol devoid thanks for the quote
            “and was on a course that would have resulted in every Australian household and business paying $43 per month more for broadband on average.”

            Let’s see Turnbull claim his FTTN price would start at $16 before the election. So why are they charging the same price as FTTP now?

          • R0ninX3ph,

            Especially when, if I remember correctly, they added OPEX to the CPP of FTTP just to inflate it further.

            Where did they do this Ronin? all the CPP figures are in CP 16, just to help you out it is Table 8: CPP by Technology on Page 67.

          • I already know the LPA avoided actually addressing the points they brought up (much like you do), which is pretty well why the SR was discredited.

            Thanks for proving your bias, and my point.

          • Where does it say FTTP and only FTTP had the OPEX added in that opinion piece?

            Indeed, where does it? It doesn’t, does it? Or did it?

            Dah dah daaah….(insert creepy LPA music here).

            Stay tuned for next week when Reality repeals the Laws of Physics!!

      • Andrew,

        You have identified the fallacy in continuously comparing Australian methods to those deployed elsewhere.

        The fallacy is wrong, so continually comparing a FTTN vs FTTP rollout based on speed of deployment and cost benefits is ok.

    • Joe,

      Did they buy back the copper like Australia did?

      Australia didn’t buy back the copper.

      No. That’s the only reason BT are rolling out FTTN is because they already owned the copper network.

      So that’s all ok then because the NBN Co own the copper network, they got it for the same amount Labor were paying the NBN Co to have it shut down.

      • Australia didn’t buy back the copper.

        No, we just got stuck with the $750m a year to maintain it (according to Malcolm).

        • Except that was a guesstimate from others for what Telstra was paying for its copper maintenance all over Australia, even outside proposed FTTN footprints.

          It is important to understand that Telstra does not release this number, and so most claims about it are informed guesswork. Most financial market analysts believe the real figure is closer to $750 million. In any case, only a few of these costs would be the responsibility of the NBN if it did obtain Telstra’s copper lines in many locations to use in a FTTN/VDSL NBN:

          http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/policy-faqs/coalition-broadband-policy-frequently-asked-questions#maintenance

          Nice try but I fixed it for ya.

          • @ alain

            Your smoking gun is from Malcolm Turnbull’s FAQ’s ? Seriously, no… you jest?

            Regardless, here’s something interesting Malcolm said in relation to your little spiel above…

            In areas where the NBN was deployed using FTTN/VDSL, the most error-prone parts of the copper (the large bundles running between nodes and exchanges) will be replaced by fibre”

            Take that into account in relation to your above comment and there’s sleight off hand going on.

            Regardless, here’s what else he said “from your link” too…

            “Public funding of $29.5 billion will be required for a Coalition NBN.”

            “Yes, a fibre to the node network does use more power than a fibre to the premises network…”

            “The Coalition policy is designed and costed on the basis that the most maintenance-intensive copper (for example in areas with high groundwater levels) will be replaced by fibre.

            “Bringing forward the completion date for the NBN by five years means the whole community gains access sooner to the indirect benefits of universal fast broadband”.

            “Many market analysts have noted that because the Coalition will accelerate the rollout (and hence migration payments to Telstra) Telstra shareholders should be slightly better off.”

            There’s plenty more gems and/or furphies in there.

            You’re welcome.

          • Nice try but I fixed it for ya.

            Fixed what? Are you now denying NBN did a deal to pay Telstra to repair any CAN faults?

          • Tinman_switcharoo,

            Let your point about the $750M go through to the keeper eh? time to switch to something else.

            Are you now denying NBN did a deal to pay Telstra to repair any CAN faults?

            No, and….?

          • Let your point about the $750M go through to the keeper eh?

            What are you talking about? Since that FAQ from Malcolm, NBN has signed a deal to pay Telstra to maintain the copper. http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/faqs#faq_2_3

            The only areas that won’t need copper maintenance will be the FttP and FW/Sat, so the lion’s share of that $750m-$1b (depending on who you believe) will still be there.

          • Yes we can roll dice all day and night on what the maintenance figure will actually be and yes the FTTN will require maintenance, I think we all fully understand the bleeding obvious.

          • Fizz,

            Your smoking gun is from Malcolm Turnbull’s FAQ’s ? Seriously, no… you jest?

            You didn’t have a problem when Tin_man used it to get the guesstimate maintenance figure though.

            LOL

          • Yes we can roll dice all day and night on what the maintenance figure will actually be and yes the FTTN will require maintenance, I think we all fully understand the bleeding obvious.

            See, it wasn’t that hard to admit, was it :o)

            I admit the figure may not be as high as the original (they’ll only need around 60-70% of the CAN once done), but it still wont be trivial.

  3. So BT are going to finish their rollout next year (that they begun in 2009) and we have just started connecting the first FTTN customers?

    • If we followed their achievement, we’d have all of Victoria (and nowhere else) covered by 2023 – just 3 years after the target! Which is just 7 years after the target they were elected on!

      What a model to follow.

      • Yes if you leave out UK vs Australia population comparisons, which you need to do to cook the comparison.

        • Yes if you leave out UK vs Australia population comparisons, which you need to do to cook the comparison.

          So area doesn’t have anything to do with it? It’s just population and density then is it? That’s the only way a comparison would be “fair” in your view?

          • I’m not sure how population, area and density can be disconnected anyway, given that density is directly related to population in an area….

            Talking about density and area size of the UK doesn’t leave out population, as the moment you talk about density you are inherently talking about population….

          • UK FTTN rollout 25M premises, Australian targeted FTTN rollout 4.5M premises, only 38% of the NBN MtM total.

            UK rollout started in 2009, Australia started FTTN rollout September 2015, in comparing the Australian rollout finishing its very much smaller 2020 FTTN target the problem is what?

          • Facts, you cant comprehend them Devoid.

            Did the IPA give you a treat today? Good boy Devoid keep up the LibTrolling, there’s a good boy.

          • @ alain,

            Shh don’t mention size again (I know size is a touchy matter for you)… or “backhaul” (get the mouse running, think, think, you don’t need me to spoon feed you always).

            You forgot to mention…

            BT have now taken 7 years to not complete the UK which is a little larger than Vic.

            Another nope, nope, nope moment…

            You’re welcome.

          • I said: So area doesn’t have anything to do with it? It’s just population and density then is it? That’s the only way a comparison would be “fair” in your view?

            You said: UK FTTN rollout 25M premises, Australian targeted FTTN rollout 4.5M premises, only 38% of the NBN MtM total. UK rollout started in 2009, Australia started FTTN rollout September 2015, in comparing the Australian rollout finishing its very much smaller 2020 FTTN target the problem is what?

            Which addresses my initial questions how?

            Then you said: Oh it was answered target centre

            You must use a very odd definition of “answered”…

          • “in comparing the Australian rollout finishing its very much smaller 2020 FTTN target the problem is what?”
            The target they were elected on was 2016.

          • “The target they were elected on was 2016.”

            But remember… The target was “revised”. Even though when Labor was in power, any mention of revision of targets was actually code for “failure”.

            So, it’s perfectly fine for the LNP to “revise” targets but not for the ALP to do the same. Understand now?

          • @Rizzcakes @R0ninX3ph

            Guys, I think I’ve worked him out. It’s uncanny. You feed in our replies, and it sounds just like him!!

            http://nlp-addiction.com/chatbot/dr.romulon/

            A couple of examples:

            Human: why does fttn have such a high opex?
            Dr. Romulon: Why do birds sing?

            Human: No, really?
            Dr. Romulon: Are you serious? For real.

            Human: UK FTTN rollout 25M premises, Australian targeted FTTN rollout 4.5M premises, only 38% of the NBN MtM total. UK rollout started in 2009, Australia started FTTN rollout September 2015, in comparing the Australian rollout finishing its very much smaller 2020 FTTN target the problem is what?
            Dr. Romulon: Can we get back to business? You tell me.

            Human: So area doesn’t have anything to do with it? It’s just population and density then is it? That’s the only way a comparison would be “fair” in your view?
            Dr. Romulon: Dude! “it” being UK rollout started in 2009 Australia started FTTN rollout September 2015 in comparing the Australian rollout finishing its very much smaller 2020 FTTN target the problem? I think It’s just population and density then is a lot of things.

          • Lol, the IPA must have pinched the the Dr Romulon Technology and are using it for LibTrolling!!! :-D

          • lmao!

            Human: Lol, the IPA must have pinched the the Dr Romulon Technology and are using it for LibTrolling!!! :-D

            Dr. Romulon: I am glad you find this funny. Tell me more. Where are you located?

          • Lol we finally found something devoid can have a meaningful conversation with

            I think we should put devoid quotes though it and reply with what the dr said

          • oh dear the FTTN haters train has left the rails again my response has hit the nerve centre and it must have been spot on as indicated by the OT frenzy.

          • Non-Human: oh dear the FTTN haters train has left the rails again my response has hit the nerve centre and it must have been spot on as indicated by the OT frenzy.
            Dr. Romulon: That’s cool. Where did he get it?

  4. http://www.lightwaveonline.com/pt/2016/04/08/bnetza-authorises-deutsche-telekom-s-vectoring-expansion.html
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-rejects-concerns-deutsche-telekom-113551000.html

    I knew BT weren’t using vectoring yet, but haven’t NBN Co mouth pieces been claiming Deutsche Telekom are using vectoring? Seems not yet. I wonder if they will encounter the same problems the that BT did that had them looking at G.Fast as an alternative solution to the crosstalk slowdowns they started getting as they neared and passed 20% take up.

    • When an upgrade is needed at 20% take-up, that is a major failure. We should thank our lucky stars we have vectoring from day one. Not that it’s a good solution. With the crosstalk, it’s actually a compromise that they call an ‘upgrade.’

      • Do we have vectoring? When asked, if vectoring is enable, NBN Co’s mouth pieces have claimed:
        – It is enabled
        – It is not enabled
        – It will be enabled in 1.5 years when the copper gets cut on the exchange side.

        The last seems most likely as vectoring doesn’t like copper running back the exchange or the legacy ADSL running through ajoining cables. It seems no one is up and running with vectoring yet.

  5. ” superfast broadband” I hate that terminology.. Its barely even fast , or very fast..
    Superfast should be 100mbps + Oh and the old “up To” 50mbps
    Disclaimer :Our services will offer a ‘Best Effort Minimum Throughput’ speed of either 12Mbps or 16Mbps. The elevated “Best Effort”” speed provides a prioritised traffic service to assure faster download speeds at peak times of the day.

    Actual speeds experienced may be faster or slower than the estimates provided and can vary significantly throughout the day and over time. Factors affecting delivered speeds include:

    Ffft ….

  6. where only 1% can get 75mbps as reported ? Even though the CTO said it was a mistake ? Already obsolete like 10 years ago ?

    • Because you can read about it on Zdnet, good to see success stories of both infrastructure rollouts, validates the MtM model Australia is using where both infrastructures are being rolled out.

      The best of both worlds.

      • Did you miss the point that BT started its rollout in 2009 and is coming to the end of it, while NBN is just connecting the first customers?

        FTTN may have been a great technology in 2009, but the rest of the world has moved on since then (including Zimbabwe who are rolling out FTTP).

      • Both infrastructures? Where are the new fibre rollouts over the next 3 years?

        We live in Turnbull’s world, where we have an ABF network (Anything But Fibre) and no place for the best of anything.

        • FTTP is used in greenfields estates, FTTP is used in areas where the remediation for FTTN is not cost effective and fibre is used in FTTN currently averaging 8000 residences per week, that’s a lot of fibre.

          • These questions.

            FTTP is not being used in all greenfields estates. Instead the cheapest option, copper, is being used. Why?

            FTTP is not being used where remediation for FTTN is not cost effective (which would be everywhere). Instead dud copper is being replaced with new copper and those too unlucky to get even that are dumped onto satellite. Why?

            8000 residences per week? For 5,000,000 premises, at that rate the FTTN portion of fraudband will take about 12 years. So the promised 2016 network will actually be delivered in 2028. Why?

            There is also fibre in backhaul, that doesn’t make every connection that uses it a fibre connection. FTTN is not a fibre connection.

          • Graham,

            FTTP is not being used in all greenfields estates. Instead the cheapest option, copper, is being used. Why?

            Because as you know or should know greenfield estates are under the control of the developer, the developer decides what they want to wire up the estate with, the overwhelming majority are FTTP, not necessarily NBN FTTP but it should be.

            The Telstra copper rollouts are in the underwhelming minority, in fact it might be even copper estate, singular.

            FTTP is not being used where remediation for FTTN is not cost effective (which would be everywhere).

            Copper remediation is not required everywhere, copper can be re mediated very cost effectively so that it would have to be a major area problem before the FTTP break even point was reached.

            Instead dud copper is being replaced with new copper and those too unlucky to get even that are dumped onto satellite.

            Example?

            8000 residences per week? For 5,000,000 premises, at that rate the FTTN portion of fraudband will take about 12 years.

            It’s not 5m premises targeted for FTTN it is 4.5M, that is 38% of residences, and the average quoted is the first 12 week rolling average that is a accelerating average from a product released only in September last year, it is not going to be the same static 12 week rolling average for every reporting period until 2020.

            FTTN is not a fibre connection.

            Last I heard it stands for Fibre to the Node.

            lol

          • Lol Devoid lol

            NBN under labor was the provider of last resort for green fields under Turnbull has changed to 100 premises Telstra is the provider of last resort.

            Lol so replacing copper with more copper is cheaper than replaceing it with fibre lol.

            Well really the 8K a week includes FTTB so it’s more like 2K a week remover 30K in 7 months from report for FTTN which doesn’t include FTTB figures lol. BT was averaging 80K a week and Australia can only do 2K or if you want to include FTTB 8K lol.

          • “FTTP is used in greenfields estates”
            Incorrect. Since 2014, copper is being used in greenfields.

            “FTTP is used in areas where the remediation for FTTN is not cost effective”
            Incorrect. nbn just bought $44m worth of copper for remediation purposes.

            “The Telstra copper rollouts are in the underwhelming minority, in fact it might be even copper estate, singular.”
            Citation Needed.

            “Example”
            https://delimiter.com.au/2016/01/05/nbn-fttn-kills-off-adsl-for-metro-customer-to-be-replaced-with-satellite/

            “the average quoted is the first 12 week rolling average that is a accelerating average from a product released only in September last year, it is not going to be the same static 12 week rolling average for every reporting period until 2020.”
            So you finally admit that the FTTN rollout ending in 2020 is a practically identical timeframe to FTTP to 93% of Aus in 2021?

          • Rizz,

            “FTTP is used in greenfields estates”
            Incorrect.

            So no greenfield estates have NBN or other supplier FTTP being rolled out anymore?

            “FTTP is used in areas where the remediation for FTTN is not cost effective”
            Incorrect. nbn just bought $44m worth of copper for remediation purposes.

            So copper remediation is still more cost effective than rolling out FTTP in its place, you point is what?

            So you finally admit that the FTTN rollout ending in 2020 is a practically identical timeframe to FTTP to 93% of Aus in 2021?

            No conclusion anything like that can be drawn from what I said.

          • So no greenfield estates have NBN or other supplier FTTP being rolled out anymore?

            From the nbn™ FAQ:

            nbn will determine what the most appropriate infrastructure to be delivered to a new development by assessing the availability of existing infrastructure in the area and the cost of deploying the infrastructure. The types of infrastructure that can be deployed include but are not limited to, Fibre, Fibre to the Node, HFC, Satellite and Wireless.

            And Telstra are already on record as saying “Mitch makes us use copper for developments under 100 lots” (paraphrasing, of course)…Telstra being the IPOLR for lots under 100.

          • “So no greenfield estates have NBN or other supplier FTTP being rolled out anymore?”
            Please provide Citation that proves otherwise.

            “So copper remediation is still more cost effective than rolling out FTTP in its place, you point is what?”
            How is rolling out copper and subsequent fibre at $84b cheaper than rolling out fibre at $45b?

            “No conclusion anything like that can be drawn from what I said.”
            You said that the rollout speed would increase over time, implicitly acknowledging that the FTTP rollout speed would have increased over time.

            When will you stop embarrassing yourself, Alain?

          • Tinman_au,

            From the nbn™ FAQ:

            umm so? what has got to do with greenfield FTTP rollouts or are you insinuating all greenfield FTTP rollouts stopped in 2013?

            And Telstra are already on record as saying “Mitch makes us use copper for developments under 100 lots” (paraphrasing, of course)…Telstra being the IPOLR for lots under 100.

            Yes good old ‘paraphrasing’, comes in handy eh?

            You left out the bit where the developer decides on the estate infrastructure rollout, they ask Telstra to rollout copper, the developer could specify FTTP for the estate 100 lots or not from any fibre supplier like Telstra or Opticomm.

            It’s a hangover from the Labor era as well.

          • umm so? what has got to do with greenfield FTTP rollouts or are you insinuating all greenfield FTTP rollouts stopped in 2013?

            Did I? Not sure how you could have taken it that way. You’re the one that claimed all greenfields are FttP. So…no, they aren’t, only some “may” be.

            It’s a hangover from the Labor era as well.

            lol, no again. Labor never had a “hook up what you like” policy on greenfields, it was all FttP.

          • Where did the Labor NBN Co enforce policy and specify to developers all greenfield FTTP rollouts must be FTTP?

          • More contradictions…alain.

            The costs were supposedly $29.5B vs. $45.6B (iirc) in the past…but you earlier here today, suggested past figures were of no importance, whatsoever.

            So in that context, your contradictory point of past 2011 figures above is alain?

            I feel a lame, ridiculous attempted differentiation coming on…*sigh*

            Regardless… let’s revisit this again…

            Rizz: So do we carry on with retrograde mediocrity (FTTN)

            alain: YES… (cont…)

            So it’s unanimous. FTTN/FRAUDBAND/NODAFAIL™ is retrograde mediocrity.

            You’re welcome.

          • That’s why I used to call him Baldrick, he’s a total F’N moron but minus any love-ability whatsoever.

          • Tinman, technically, developments under 100 premises under Labor also, were to be connected by Telstra, and Telstra agreed they would generally still roll out copper to those developments.

            However, that wasn’t an issue under the old rollout, as eventually for most of those developments, NBN Co would have come along at some point and overbuilt that copper from Telstra with Fibre anyway.

            Which won’t happen now, because they’ll just be hooked up to FTTN and that’ll be the end of it.

          • Tinman, technically, developments under 100 premises under Labor also, were to be connected by Telstra, and Telstra agreed they would generally still roll out copper to those developments.

            Yes, but only in areas where they had no fibre, otherwise, NBN Co would do sub 100 ones as well.

          • Yeah you’re right, but at the time, there wasn’t really any fibre around right? So, I would expect that Telstra was doing a lot of the Greenfields sub 100 premises.

          • Yeah you’re right, but at the time, there wasn’t really any fibre around right?

            Yeah, but you need to remember, before fibre, there was no fibre.

            But seriously, I agree, Reality is probably right. I’m kinda getting over the whole thing really. Australia is going to remain mediocre and that’s all our kids can hope for.

          • “But seriously, I agree, Reality is probably right. I’m kinda getting over the whole thing really. Australia is going to remain mediocre and that’s all our kids can hope for.”

            Thats okay, as Australia sits on its arse regarding broadband… I’ll just live longer in Japan, experiencing gigabit fibre a decade before Australia will manage to get it.

            Maybe send my kids to live with their grandparents for a while, to experience what the internet was like in the 1990’s in Japan.

    • Because the ZDNet article is inaccurate? I’m still astounded at the final paragraph. How can anything else in the article be regarded as credible?

      “By comparison, Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN), which moved away from an all-fibre rollout following the Coalition’s election at the end of 2013, is forecast to reach 100 percent of Australian premises by 2020, guaranteeing minimum speeds of 25Mbps down/5Mbps up.”

      ONE HUNDRED PERCENT?
      GUARANTEES 25mbps?
      There must be another Australia’s NBN somewhere, because that’s not ours.

Comments are closed.